From: Torsten
Message: 65375
Date: 2009-11-07
>True, the method covers only roots with just one extension, plus those where several extensions can be reasonably explained as being variants before the given nominal suffixes and inflectional endings (eg. *kam-, *kaw-).
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > > > > And when making comparisons, beware of PIE root-extensions!
> > > >
> > > > I have always beworn of them, as a matter of fact I
> > > > distinctly don't like them. I think they need to grow a
> > > > semantics.
> > >
> > > *wei- 'apart', *weidH- 'to make apart, separate'
> > > *gWem- 'to move toward, come', *gWeh2- 'to move away, go'
> > > *sneh2- 'to float, swim', *sneh2gH- 'to dive'
> > >
> > > Plenty of work left, but not an insurmountable task.
> > >
> > In the minor Germanic languages (which is why most people are not
> > aware of it) the present suffix is adds another syllable to the
> > root. It is therefore tempting to eliminate the auslaut consonant
> > and save yourself a syllable. However, this works only for the
> > most commonly use verbs; the rest of the must preserve that
> > consonant for recognizability.
> >
> > Examples
> > Dutch pres. pl. slaa-n, elsewhere slag- "beat"
> > Sw. pres. drar, obs. drager, Da. drager (obsolescent in Danish,
> > replaced by trækk-er from Dutch, therefore rare)
> > Sw. bryr, Da. bryder (replaced by Dutch/LG brækk-er)
> >
> > I suspect something similar took place in PIE. The 'extensions'
> > would then be part of the original root, which lost its auslaut
> > consonant in certain postions. Later, both forms were generalized.
> >
> > I also suspect that Germanic double forms *sta-/*stand- and
> > *ga:-/gang- originated in this fashion.
> >
> > My Paradebeispiel is *yéu(x)-ti, *yung-ánti
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/46161
> >
> > In the list in
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/46264
> > the 3sg forms should be the ones losing the 'extensions' (after
> > spirantization).
>
> I won't rain on your Paradebeispiel; it seems a reasonable enough
> way of explaining verb-classes with nasal infixation. But I don't
> see how a similar mechanism could account for the diversity of PIE
> root-extensions.
> To me they look like postfixes corresponding to old postpositions;For that to happen, verb roots would have to be also nominal, which I actually think they were, ie so that the root could also function as a participle, but if the extensions were postpositions then an extended verb stem would be a postpositional phrase, ie. a kind of adverb, and that won't work, since the verb root and the verb stem must be of the same syntactic category. If we have to explain the extensions as traces of a periphrastic construction, and if we believe the verb root was once a verbal noun, the extension would have to be an old adjective.
> this explains the difficulty in pinning down their originalMyself, I think it's similar (and suspiciously so) to what I proposed for Germanic sta:- and stand-: *gWám´-ti, *gWm´-ánti -> *gWáx-ti, gWm´-énti (m´ from PPIE *mi).
> semantic force. Possibly *-m 'toward' is identical with the
> animate accusative marker.